Well I want to say a huge thank you and well done to the curator. He prepared a brilliant pitch. One that yielded a definite result but wasn't a total mine field.

It certainly was a weird one though. Whenever a pitch is deteriorating like that it normally only goes one way and thats worse but it looked like this pitch got easier to bat on after day 2. Boycott was saying we'd got enough of a lead at 200 but fair play to Australia, they never go down without a fight.

How they didn't go in with a spinner on such a dry pitch is baffling though.

Well I want to say a huge thank you and well done to the curator. He prepared a brilliant pitch. One that yielded a definite result but wasn't a total mine field.

It certainly was a weird one though. Whenever a pitch is deteriorating like that it normally only goes one way and thats worse but it looked like this pitch got easier to bat on after day 2. Boycott was saying we'd got enough of a lead at 200 but fair play to Australia, they never go down without a fight.

How they didn't go in with a spinner on such a dry pitch is baffling though.

It was a bad pitch but was possible to bat on once a batsman had got in. Whether it was "doctored" depends on your definition. It was by design completely different to any pitch ever seen at the Oval before but whether that qualifies as doctoring is open to debate.

It was a bad pitch but was possible to bat on once a batsman had got in. Whether it was "doctored" depends on your definition. It was by design completely different to any pitch ever seen at the Oval before but whether that qualifies as doctoring is open to debate.

A pitch that is tough for Batsmen to bat on is not a bad pitch. When there were 3 scores > 300, I don't understand how it is a bad pitch. Bad pitches would be the ones in Kanpur (2008), Mumbai (2004), all of NZ (2002-03).

Earlier curators were blamed for no-result pitch, now a pitch that promises a result but is not too tough to score on also gets him blamed.

A pitch that is tough for Batsmen to bat on is not a bad pitch. When there were 3 scores > 300, I don't understand how it is a bad pitch. Bad pitches would be the ones in Kanpur (2008), Mumbai (2004), all of NZ (2002-03).

Earlier curators were blamed for no-result pitch, now a pitch that promises a result but is not too tough to score on also gets him blamed.

What happened in NZ 2002-03?

WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

A pitch that is tough for Batsmen to bat on is not a bad pitch. When there were 3 scores > 300, I don't understand how it is a bad pitch. Bad pitches would be the ones in Kanpur (2008), Mumbai (2004), all of NZ (2002-03).

Earlier curators were blamed for no-result pitch, now a pitch that promises a result but is not too tough to score on also gets him blamed.

It was a terrible wicket. The ball was taking chunks out of it after tea on the first day. If the teams had had proper bowling attacks with two quality spinners you would have a very short match. In fact if Shane Warne had been playing it would have been a very uneven contest between bat and ball. Though you have to assume that the curator wouldn't have done what he did if Australia still had Warne and McGill.

It was a terrible wicket. The ball was taking chunks out of it after tea on the first day. If the teams had had proper bowling attacks with two quality spinners you would have a very short match. In fact if Shane Warne had been playing it would have been a very uneven contest between bat and ball. Though you have to assume that the curator wouldn't have done what he did if Australia still had Warne and McGill.

There is. All the whining that goes on after surfaces like these are prepared is the reason there are so many flat pitches and bore draws in test cricket these days. Anything other than rank flatties I'm happy with.

The fact that groundsman aren't capable of preparing proper wickets that gradually deteriorate within the timespan allowed for the game doesn't make a wicket that falls to pieces on Day One a good one. It might be preferable to one that stays flat for the duration but it's still not a good wicket.

There is. All the whining that goes on after surfaces like these are prepared is the reason there are so many flat pitches and bore draws in test cricket these days. Anything other than rank flatties I'm happy with.

This. It wasn't an unplayable wicket and if Ponting and Clarke hadn't been run out Australia would have got even closer to 500. Give us results and we wont have talks about test cricket dying out.

It's always considered to be a 'bad' pitch by players if they cannot trust the bounce on the wicket especially as early as Day 1. I can understand their point, I've batted on pitches where the ball could either die or jump and hit you on the head and it could be potentially dangerous. However, its important to point out that not that many balls misbehaved during that test and that the pitch didn't deteriorate that much over the course of the game. If that meant that they were playing on a day 4 pitch on day 1 and a day 5 pitch on day 2 so be it, with all the protection that batters have these days and with the game already been loaded in favor of the batters, cannot see how this pitch was bad for the game.

Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!